Are dual-RCD CUs still being installed?

[sparkwright]

.

 

[sparkwright]

I'm not trying to be awkward, honest.

But for me, a few years ago seems recent, particularly in this trade.

In the first poll, I found the question simple enough, and feel I interpreted it correctly, and voted accordingly - yet I felt the second poll to be less logical - and therefore with only one possible option that could be voted for, as the first two options were so unlikely I don't think anyone would dream of picking those.

Indeed, the phrase 'era' was the actual word used, I don't think it had to be used, but it was, and formed part of the sentences for which we are voting. After an element of doubt by the response of the first poll, it seems only right to study and fully understand the text of the second poll to ensure a true reflection of the RCD matter.

I think the 'era' phrase may not have been the best wording.

I would have thought during the first poll, after inviting others to change their vote, and no changes being made, that would have been it.


What started as a seemingly simple poll became a bit serious when it was felt people may have been misinterpreting it, and a second (and rather strange IMO) poll was set up.

 

[ericmark]

I see change the question to get the answer you want. Are Steam engines still being built for railways? The answer is also yes, but only for heritage railways as a tourist attraction, same way duel RCD CU's are still fitted by penny pinching landlords.

 

[securespark]

I have to agree at least in part with eric.

There will always be "handymen" and builders who install the cheaper/cheapest option.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not trying to be awkward, honest. ... But for me, a few years ago seems recent, particularly in this trade.

I don't think that 'awkward' is the word, but you are being a bit argumentative However, I think I may be able to resolve this (below).

In the first poll, I found the question simple enough, and feel I interpreted it correctly, and voted accordingly ...

You did, in terms of your understanding and use of the phrases "the era of X" and "the era of Y is long gone".

... yet I felt the second poll to be less logical - and therefore with only one possible option that could be voted for, as the first two options were so unlikely I don't think anyone would dream of picking those.

Exactly, and those first two options were what I was trying (seemingly not very well!) to ask about in the first poll, and had therefore expected that, as you say, no-one would dream of picking either of those (i.e. they would not dream of answering 'Yes' to the first poll question). I therefore expected to get something like a 100% "No" response in the first poll that I could use to show flameport that his words were at risk of misleading readers.

Indeed, the phrase 'era' was the actual word used, I don't think it had to be used, but it was, and formed part of the sentences for which we are voting.

It did 'have to be used' (for my poll), because it was the very wording that flameport had used in his post which concerned me, and which caused me to create the poll. That is why, as you may have noticed, I put the phrase in quotes in both the title of the thread and the question of the poll.

I think the 'era' phrase may not have been the best wording.

Quite so (see above) - but it was the wording that I was really questioning (hence the phrase was in quotes).

I would have thought during the first poll, after inviting others to change their vote, and no changes being made, that would have been it.

Not really. I can't tell you why they didn't change their votes after I had explained the intent of my question, but when I posted the second one, making that intent clearer, the voting so far has been unanimous, and as I had expected.

I suppose it's also worth noting that, even in the first poll, the voting was about 50:50, nothing liker 'unanimous'.

However, I think we can probably settle things amicably 'between us' by recognising, as above, that all our differences have really resulted from our having different understandings of the meaning of the phrase "the era of X is long gone" - and, on the basis of your apparent views about that, I can understand everything you have said - i.e. as I first wrote a good few posts back I think our differences are really only sematic ones.

If I wrote any of the following (and I could write 'millions' more!):

• The era of asbestos in building work and electrical switchgear is long gone
• The era of VOELCBs is long gone
• The era of installing VIR cable is long gone
• The era of cars without seatbelts is long gone
• The era of leaded petrol is long gone
• The era of treating syphilis with mercury is long gone
• The era of corporal punishment in UK schools is long gone
• The era of male homosexuality being illegal in the UK is long gone

... then I imagine you would agree with all those statements, and take them to mean that the practices in question have not been acceptable/ allowed/ legal/ whatever for a long time, in most of the above cases a very long time.

I (but seemingly not you - which is fair enough) interpret any "The era of XYZ is long gone" statement in that same way, and I doubt that I am anything like alone in that. Hence, when flameport wrote that the era of dual-RCD CUs is "long gone" I was concerned that a good few people reading that would take it to mean that such CUs 'have not been acceptable/allowed (let alone installed) for a long time' - whereas, as we both know, countless are still being sold and, I imagine, installed, even today (even if you don't do that).

So, just a different interpretation of the phrase, and that's the main difference between us.

However, I should also say that, on the basis of what I understand and see going on, I think you are probably fairly seriously underestimating the number of dual-RCD CUs still being installed. It would be nothing but a wild guess, but if you had 'forced' me to guess, I think I would probably have suggested that more than half the CUs being installed in 2022 are probably 'dual-RCD' ones (or, at least, 'high integrity' ones with a couple of RCBOs as well as 2 RCDs and several MCBs) - but, as said, that guess might have been wildly incorrect.

Kind Regards, John

 

[sparkwright]

I have no reason or desire to argue, I'm sorry if it came across like that.

Since dual RCD boards ARE STILL available, and there is no regulation saying they can no longer be fitted, then - obviously - we can only pick the third option - 'they continue to be installed'.

As long as they are still manufactured, people will still fit them. Though the more discerning electrician will now fitting all-RCBO boards because RCBOs are now cheaper and it's a better design.

So you can probably see my reservations about saying we are still in the dual RCD era, a misleading title - though I realise this was based on a comment by another poster on a completely different thread


Apologies if I have upset you.

 

[securespark]

Some call it argumentative, others will say you are expressing your opinion.

I don't think you need to apologise.

 

[JohnW2]

I have no reason or desire to argue, I'm sorry if it came across like that.

I would be inclined to say that, by definition, you have been 'arguing' (disagreeing with me, and stating your alternative views), but there's absolutely nothing wrong with that - as you must be aware, I do it all the time (and I do in my professional life, as well as here - not the least because that is often what I'm being paid to do!)

... Since dual RCD boards ARE STILL available, and there is no regulation saying they can no longer be fitted, then - obviously - we can only pick the third option - 'they continue to be installed'. ... As long as they are still manufactured, people will still fit them. ...

Exactly.

Though the more discerning electrician will now fitting all-RCBO boards because RCBOs are now cheaper and it's a better design.

That might be taken as a rather negative comment about the competence/judgement/whatever of those (I can but presume, many) electricians who are still installing dual-RCD boards. Is that your intention?

Trying to be objective, I would personally say that the advantages of RCBOs are really pretty marginal. They afford no greater 'protection' (against electric shock, fires etc.) than do RCDs+MCBs (other than protection against the oft-cited 'being plunged into darkness' - which, because of power cuts, needs to be addressed by emergency lighting) and really offer little even in terms of 'convenience', given that most installations suffer from 'RCD trips' only once in a blue moon. As has been said, it may make fault finding (in the face of 'device trips') easier, although it can also frustrate such fault-finding if (as is the case with current domestic RCBOs) one cannot tell whether 'intermittent trips' are due to over-current or residual current - and even that fault finding will, for most installations, again only be a 'once in a blue moon' exercise. ... and, although tangential to this actual discussion, don't get me onto SPDs and AFDDs in domestic installations

That's obviously just a personal view, but I would be interested to know what you feel is a compelling argument for the fitting of all-RCBO boards, which you say is what 'discerning' electricians are doing.

So you can probably see my reservations about saying we are still in the dual RCD era, a misleading title - though I realise this was based on a comment by another poster on a completely different thread

Indeed, and that's the very point I was trying to make in my last post. You surely must understand that the only reason I started this thread/poll was because the phrase had been used by "another poster in a completely different thread" - and why I put the "era" phrase in quotes, both in the title of the thread and the poll question, as well as explaining the reason in my initial post in that thread.

If he has written something like "there is a move towards all-RCBO CUs, and some [or even 'many'] electricians may advise that approach", I would have had no problem. However, as I recently wrote, I feel sure that I good few readers of "the era of dual-RCD CUs is long gone" will take that to mean that such CUs have not been 'acceptable' (perhaps not even 'allowed') for 'a long time' - particularly given the absence of any mention that they are still being installed and/or that there is scope for debate amongst electricians as to whether they are really advantageous. In other words, I think the statement (including the "era" word) had the potential to mislead those who do not know better.

Apologies if I have upset you.

I'm certainly not upset, and you certainly don't need to apologise - lively 'debate' ('argument' if you wish) is what makes the world (at least, my world!) go around, provide it remains 'pleasant' (which this discussion has, throughout, for which I thank you).

Kindest Regards, John